Slitherine

(I must confess my brain melted a few pages into this thread, so I apologise if I'm repeating what has already been raised)

Let's ask ourselves; what effect will our scoring system have on a player's experience of the game? A simple system that doesn't require tables and charts is ideal, and could be seen as a natural extension of the low-overhead nature of FoG itself (I'm only going by the promotional fluff - I haven't read the beta myself so don't know how accurate my statement is!). A complex system, and I do include some of the early suggestions here as they require players to complete tables and consult charts, would appeal to players that feel their victory (or defeat) was the result of intricate or complex play - and would feel validated by an equally complex scoring system. Both extremes have merit - perhaps some compromise between the two is ideal? I'm starting to drift now so I'll try to make my point - what does the scoring system say about FoG, what is the experience of playing FoG, and what scoring system best reflects that experience as a natural extension? I propose that none of us want a scoring system that is more complicated than the game itself

The main point of my post aside, I'll propose something lighthearted...
I'm in favour of a very simple scoring system, probably because I'm not very bright:
2 points for a win
1 point for a draw
0 points for a loss
It still only needs data entry for one player. You could play around with the numbers to make it add up to whatever you want at the end of the meet and/or add extra levels of success to reflect what is considered (correctly or incorrectly) to be an accurate outcome of the historical battles we like to think we are simulating, although I feel it works best just like this.

Having just read thru everything written on 6 forum pages, I'll give my 0.02 on this.

I have just really started to think about FoG again and asked Mr. Hazelwood at a recent demo game about scoring. After reading this thread, his reply makes alot more sense to me.

I think it is basically coming down to 2 camps:

1. Those that want to see an army broken as a victory and anything else as a draw
2. Those that think a desicive result should also count as a victory.

I agree that slow play does and will continue to exist and there are sometimes just no way to get around that.

Why not a system that can handle both? If you break the opponents army that should be worth something, but what was the cost to you? If you have nearly defeated the opponent but time(aka darkness has fallen on the FoG) and it is obvious that he is going to bugger off in the middle of the night isn't that also worth something?

Some system that incorporates an AP lost difference mechanism as well as some rewards for breaking the opponents army.

A zero sum matters not to me and I have run alot of tournies in the past and will be again. I know record keeping is an absolute bore to most, but it has to be done.

I am going to sit and work something up over the next few days using some of the ideas that have been thrown out here. I think it is very important that a standard be set and agreed upon by all.

I think the only way to do that is to have the authors publish what the TOURNAMENT SCORING system will be.

Look for more later this week for you all to shot holes in/ridicule/praise, etc.

jshauber wrote:
I think the only way to do that is to have the authors publish what the TOURNAMENT SCORING system will be.

I believe they have: http://www.fieldofglory.com/competition/scoresheet.html

I like this system as it is both granulated to help differentiate players during a comp and it includes a bonus for a decisive result which is meaningful but not too distorting.

Cheers,

Steve

stevoid wrote:I believe they have: http://www.fieldofglory.com/competition/scoresheet.html

Thanks for the link.

Readers of this thread can ignore my previous post as it is now clearly redundant. All that remains is a discussion of how opponents are paired up - or has that already been decided by the developers too?

Readers of this thread can ignore my previous post as it is now clearly redundant. All that remains is a discussion of how opponents are paired up - or has that already been decided by the developers too?

This is left to the competition organisers - but.....

The program in development will include options for:

Seeding: Up to half the players may be seeded (and thus avoid playing each other). Number of rounds selectable.
Club exclusions: Player from the same club will not be allowed to play each other for a number of rounds (again selectable)
Family exclusions: Player who are closely related cannot be paired against each other in any round (All or None)

An additional option is that - Players from the same club will not be paired against each other in any round if both are in the bottom half of the draw. This resolves an often heard complaint that 2 players from the same club with no chance of winning end up playing each other in the last round.


Of course if all options are chosen, it may be difficult to complete a draw in the later rounds, so the program will automatically remove the options one-by-one until the draw is satisfactory.

I'll be trialing it at Usk this weekend.

Excellent - am I correct in assuming this will be made available once complete?

Excellent - am I correct in assuming this will be made available once complete?

As far as I know it will.


The Beta version was run at Godendag last weekend and although it came up with a bug in the draw on round 3 & 4, it was an easy one to find. That particular part of the program had been already tested, but a later change wasn't transposed correctly. (shot myself in the foot!)

I now need to add a few extra bits - Like a simple way to make a manual draw, and to change the calculated scores. Just in case the auto-scorer has a bug. I've also seen competitions where points are subtracted for yellow-card offences. Then I need to 'tart it up', and contemplate different language versions.

Looking ahead, I think it would be worth bearing in mind that you may be called upon to add the capability of outputting a file of all the game results that can be input directly into a Glicko rating program. This is likely to need:

Tournament name and date;
For each game: player names and official Glicko identifiers, army list book numbers and army numbers, scores and date (of game), listed in the order of rounds. Byes and defaults should be excluded from this list.

It will also need to be able to cope with doubles tournaments.

We won't know the exact requirements until the new glicko program intended to take over from the DBM one is actually developed, but at least you can take whatever steps are necessary now to ensure the job is as easy as possible later.

The Programme will be a free down load from the FoG Web site.

We may go as far as a ranking system, but how or in what way we do this we are still considering.

Views on this are very welcome

Regards
JDM

We won't know the exact requirements until the new glicko program intended to take over from the DBM one is actually developed, but at least you can take whatever steps are necessary now to ensure the job is as easy as possible later.

Not a problem. Adding a routine to collate the information wouldn't be too difficult - once I know the details.

It will also need to be able to cope with doubles tournaments.

A bit more complicated. Escpecially the multi-round competitions. I'm working on it.

Suggestion re the pretty score sheet:

Something that is often included in competitions down under is whether camps were sacked and how many generals came home on a shield. Side prizes are often awarded on this basis.

It would be great if the FOG score sheets had a box for camps bothered and generals killed...

Steve

It should not be a French, italian, german, spannish versions ?

They are coming

JDM

and the additional fields?

Steve